The Mythology about Trump’s Christian Faith and Savior of the Faith

“Nigeria’s reform crisis is not about ideas, but about trust. Without it, even sound policies become liabilities.”

On Nigerian social media videos showing Trump promising to bring the Bible back to America, opposing homosexuality and false claim of a Biden/Kamala government funded sex-affirming surgery for children are being used to portray Trump as devout Christian and savior of the faith. Health care coverage in the U.S. is provided by the private health insurance companies. Even Obama care is provided via the private market who decides what treatment it covers. This notion that Trump is Bible-reading, scripture union (SU) Christ-loving savior of the faith is one of the mythologies that has been propagated and accepted as gospel truth by many especially in Nigeria. By the fruit ye shall know them. No one knows which church Trump attends nor his pastor. Trump is not a Christian by any standard and there are no fruit of the spirit in his life. Yes, many U.S. evangelicals have adopted him as their reincarnated saviour of the faith due mainly to the overturning of Roe by the Supreme Court appointees who were hand picked for him by the conservation think tank. However, during the campaign when abortion became toxic Trump actually tried to walk back his claim as the one who overturned Roe. He supported Florida Amendment 4 claiming that the six weeks abortion ban was too strict before he walked it back. After decades of cultural resistance to homosexuality, public opinion has shifted towards more support for homosexuality as more scientific data has emerged supporting the biological foundation for most homosexuality. Homosexuality has been recorded for centuries in every culture across the globe dating back to biblical time. What has changed is societal attitude towards it, causing more gays to come out of the closet. This, of course, is still very upsetting on many especially in traditional societies like Nigeria. A recent survey by Gallup shows that 69% of Americans now support same sex marriage which is a seismic shift from just a decade ago. However, among the core evangelicals, opposition to homosexuality and abortion is cast in stone. Trump has exploited that opposition as the cornerstone of his three presidential bids to court the evangelicals and it has worked like magic. The Trump campaign spent over $30 million on videos like this one that falsely and effectively define Kamala Harris who, as an elected official from liberal California, has a long record of supporting abortion and gay rights. The realignment of the traditional strong Hispanic support away from the Democrat toward Trump who took over 40% of their votes is a reflection of both their concern about inflation but moreso, their traditional value which still strongly opposes Gay rights and abortion. I saw that shift here in Miami which was once a deep blue Democratic base which has now turned Ruby Red as Hispanics have become the vast majority, a major demographic shift due to immigration. Trump spent over 30 million dollars pushing the sex affirming video ad naseum during the campaign. By the way I know several Nigerians here in the U.S. who also voted for Trump on the same issue of opposition to Gay right and abortion. Without understanding the nuance of the context, one can easily misread the situation. The reality is that this election result and the massive loss by Kamala has a lot to do with misogyny, racism and xenophobia. Americans were just not ready for a woman president especially one like Kamala who has a complicated immigrant Indian and Jamaican parent more so as wars are going on both in Europe and the Middle East. The image of Trump as a strong man is very appealing to many especially Hispanics many came from countries where strong men were venerated. There were also many blacks who did not think Kamala was black enough. Janet Jackson actually voiced that opinion. Trump increased his black votes while Kamala was way below where Obama was in his presidential bids. This was a case of Kamala running a truncated presidential run (107 days) during the perfect storm when the economy, inflation, cultural sentiments were all against the Democrats. Here is the link to the pew research opinion survey data on attitude towards same sex marriage. https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/ Adewale Alonge, PhD, Founder & President, Africa Diaspora Partnership for Empowerment and Development. www.adped.org

INEC in America’s November election (1)

“America has many contradictions in spite of its claim to exceptionalism.“ THERE will be a significant election this year in a significant country which prides itself as the greatest democracy on earth. That country, a super power, claims that the election will be consequential, and will have ramifications for its citizens, and the whole world. For about two centuries this country has held this poll on the first Saturday in November in the election year. For this year, that date falls on November 5. The election was initially slated to be a fierce battle between two old men, one in his late 70s, and the other in his early 80s. It was supposed to be a rematch, sort of, because the duo had battled each other four years ago with the older prevailing. You already know because that country is the United States of America where the then incumbent president, Donald Trump, was defeated in 2020, and his successor, Joe Biden, was defeated from seeking a second term by a disastrous presidential debate outing on June 27. Biden came under intense pressure from his party people, and had to ‘pass the torch’ in July to his vice president Kamala Harris who is younger and more energetic. America has many contradictions in spite of its claim to exceptionalism. There’s is no record that it has been governed by any other means except through the ballot box, at least not in the last 200 years. It lays claim to democracy but it fails to meet the key ingredient of rule by the majority of its citizens voting in an election. Certainly, not for the election of its president. The classical definition of democracy is government of the people by the people for the people. In many climes, it is also governance by representatives who had been elected by a majority of voters during any election. Not so in the United States. In 2016, Hillary Clinton, candidate of the Democratic Party lost the presidential election in spite of winning three million more popular votes of the electorate. His rival, Donald Trump, of the Republican Party with an inferior popular votes tally was returned as the winner. The unique but apparently an undemocratic (to many outsiders) Electoral College gave victory to Trump. The candidates and the parties in that contest knew the rule and so could not complain. “The constitution in its 12th Amendment recognised ‘electors’. And the ‘electors’ for each of the 50 states have been determined, and the number of ‘electors’ for each state may be reflective but not necessarily proportional to the population of the state. Any candidate who secures a minimum of 270 Electoral College votes wins the presidency irrespective of the outcome of the popular votes.“ The name, Electoral College, which determines who is elected as the US president is not in that country’s constitution. History has it that the founding fathers of the country inserted this mode of electing a president as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in Congress (parliament), which used to be the practice, and the election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. Until the 1960s not many people were qualified to vote in elections. There was no universal suffrage. The constitution in its 12th Amendment recognised ‘electors’. And the ‘electors’ for each of the 50 states have been determined, and the number of ‘electors’ for each state may be reflective but not necessarily proportional to the population of the state. Any candidate who secures a minimum of 270 Electoral College votes wins the presidency irrespective of the outcome of the popular votes. The Electoral College has been a vexatious subject in American politics for centuries. And that explains why surveys showed that in the past 200 years more than 700 proposals had been introduced in Congress to either reform or eliminate the Electoral College. Probably, to underline its undemocratic nature, it has been recorded that there have been more proposals for constitutional amendments on changing the ‘electors’ method for determining the winner of the American presidency than on any other subject. Apart from politicians, America’s body of lawyers, the American Bar Association, has had cause to criticise the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous”, and its polling showed that 69% of lawyers favoured abolishing it in 1987. In addition, public opinion polls showed that Americans favoured abolishing it by majorities of 58% in 1967; 81% in 1968; and 75% in 1981. The conventional wisdom is that any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular votes nationwide has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees as implicated in the presidential election results of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016. It has been suggested that the Electoral College was contrived by the founders of the US to stem the possible agitations for separation from the Union by less populated states who may feel cheated and excluded in producing the president of the country. In effect, the Electoral College was informed by the need for the accommodation of all segments of the society. However, some scholars argued that the ‘electors’ scheme was indeed the handiwork of a segment of the elite among the founding fathers who did not want to totally relinquish the election of the president to the masses. On November 5, two candidates  Harris (Democrat), and Trump (Republican ) will lock horns for who occupies the American presidency which is generally regarded as the most powerful office in the world. Third party candidates are usually inconsequential since none has won the office ever. Harris appears to have an edge in the race at this time but election watchers reckon that in reality, the two candidates are running neck-and-neck. The proposition for the moment is that any of Harris or Trump can win the election. And this uncertainty is down to the complexities of the Electoral College. In 2016, polls and pundits put Hillary Clinton ahead by

Obama endorses Kamala Harris for US president

By Doris Isreal Ijeoma Former US president Barack Obama endorsed his fellow Democrat Kamala Harris’ bid for the White House on Friday, delivering a major boost to her campaign to beat Donald Trump in November’s presidential election. “Earlier this week, Michelle and I called our friend Kamala Harris. We told her we think she’ll make a fantastic President of the United States, and that she has our full support,” Obama said on social media platform X. “At this critical moment for our country, we’re going to do everything we can to make sure she wins in November. We hope you’ll join us.” The influential former leader was one of the last Democratic heavy hitters to offer his endorsement, with Harris having already received the backing of President Joe Biden on Sunday to take his place on the ballot. Obama’s backing will add to the growing momentum behind Harris’ campaign, which has enjoyed a groundswell of support since she announced her 11th-hour candidacy. Harris, 59, jumped into the election after weeks of turmoil over 81-year-old Biden, who bowed out after a dismal debate performance against Trump accelerated concerns over his mental capacity and persistently low polling numbers. The country’s first woman vice president — who is seeking to make history again in November — launched a blistering attack on Trump and his “extremist” Republicans as she addressed teachers Thursday. The momentum appeared to catch Trump off guard, with the bombastic Republican refusing to schedule a debate with Harris, saying Thursday night it would be “inappropriate” until she was officially named the Democratic nominee. “Democrats very well could still change their minds,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement. Harris, a former top prosecutor for California, chided her opponent on X, saying: “What happened to ‘any time, any place?’” She had previously said of a potential September 10 face-off: “I’m ready. So let’s go.”